Support Materials: Chapter 1 || Chapter 2 || Chapter 3 || Chapter 4 || Chapter 5 || Chapter 6 || Chapter 7 || Chapter 8

Contents: Chapter Two--Constitutional Limitations on the Definition and Punishment of Criminal Offenses

Back to Top

The following case is associated with Webnote A on page 38

Grayned v. City of Rockford
408 U.S. 104
U. S. Supreme Court
June 26, 1972

MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

     Appellant Richard Grayned was convicted for his part in a demonstration in front of West Senior High School in Rockford, Illinois. Negro students at the school had first presented their grievances to school administrators. When the principal took no action on crucial complaints, a more public demonstration of protest was planned. On April 25, 1969, approximately 200 people--students, their family members, and friends--gathered next to the school grounds. Appellant, whose brother and twin sisters were attending the school, was part of this group. The demonstrators marched around on a sidewalk about 100 feet from the school building, which was set back from the street. Many carried signs which summarized the grievances: "Black cheerleaders to cheer too"; "Black history with black teachers"; "Equal rights, Negro counselors." Others, without placards, made the "power to the people" sign with their upraised and clenched fists.

     In other respects, the evidence at appellant's trial was sharply contradictory. Government witnesses reported that the demonstrators repeatedly cheered, chanted, baited policemen, and made other noise that was audible in the school; that hundreds of students were distracted from their school activities and lined the classroom windows to watch the demonstration; that some demonstrators successfully yelled to their friends to leave the school building and join the demonstration; that uncontrolled latenesses after period changes in the school were far greater than usual, with late students admitting that they had been watching the demonstration; and that, in general, orderly school procedure was disrupted. Defense witnesses claimed that the demonstrators were at all times quiet and orderly; that they did not seek to violate the law, but only to "make a point"; that the only noise was made by policemen using loudspeakers; that almost no students were noticeable at the schoolhouse windows; and that orderly school procedure was not disrupted.

     After warning the demonstrators, the police arrested 40 of them, including appellant.... For participating in the demonstration, Grayned was tried and convicted of violating two Rockford ordinances, hereinafter referred to as the "antipicketing" ordinance and the "antinoise" ordinance. A $25 fine was imposed for each violation. Since Grayned challenged the constitutionality of each ordinance, he appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Illinois. Ill. Sup. Ct. Rule 302. He claimed that the ordinances were invalid on their face, but did not urge that, as applied to him, the ordinances had punished constitutionally protected activity. The Supreme Court of Illinois held that both ordinances were constitutional on their face. 46 Ill. 2d 492, 263 N. E. 2d 866 (1970). We noted probable jurisdiction, 404 U. S. 820 (1971). We conclude that the antipicketing ordinance is unconstitutional, but affirm the court below with respect to the antinoise ordinance.

At the time of appellant's arrest and conviction, Rockford's antipicketing ordinance provided that

     "A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly..."

     "(i) Pickets or demonstrates on a public way within 150 feet of any primary or secondary school building while the school is in session and one-half hour before the school is in session and one-half hour after the school session has been concluded, provided that this subsection does not prohibit the peaceful picketing of any school involved in a labor dispute ...." Code of Ordinances, c. 28, § 18.1 (i).

This ordinance is identical to the Chicago disorderly conduct ordinance we have today considered in Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, ante, p. 92. For the reasons given in Mosley, we agree with dissenting Justice Schaefer below, and hold that § 18.1 (i) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Appellant's conviction under this invalid ordinance must be reversed....

The antinoise ordinance reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

"No person, while on public or private grounds adjacent to any building in which a school or any class thereof is in session, shall willfully make or assist in the making of any noise or diversion which disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of such school session or class thereof...." Code of Ordinances, c. 28, § 19.2 (a).

Appellant claims that, on its face, this ordinance is both vague and overbroad, and therefore unconstitutional. We conclude, however, that the ordinance suffers from neither of these related infirmities.

A. Vagueness
   
It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning....  Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them.... A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.... Third, but related, where a vague statute "abut[s] upon sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms,"...  it "operates to inhibit the exercise of [those] freedoms."... Uncertain meanings inevitably lead citizens to "'steer far wider of the unlawful zone' ... than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked." ... 

Although the question is close, we conclude that the antinoise ordinance is not impermissibly vague. The court below rejected appellant's arguments "that proscribed conduct was not sufficiently specified and that police were given too broad a discretion in determining whether conduct was proscribed." 46 Ill. 2d, at 494, 263 N. E. 2d, at 867. Although it referred to other, similar statutes it had recently construed and upheld, the court below did not elaborate on the meaning of the antinoise ordinance.... In this situation, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter put it, we must "extrapolate its allowable meaning." ... Here, we are "relegated ... to the words of the ordinance itself," ... to the interpretations the court below has given to analogous statutes... and, perhaps to some degree, to the interpretation of the statute given by those charged with enforcing it.... "Extrapolation," of course, is a delicate task, for it is not within our power to construe and narrow state laws....

With that warning, we find no unconstitutional vagueness in the antinoise ordinance. Condemned to the use of words, we can never expect mathematical certainty from our language.... The words of the Rockford ordinance are marked by "flexibility and reasonable breadth, rather than meticulous specificity," Esteban v. Central Missouri State College, 415 F.2d 1077, 1088 (CA8 1969) (Blackmun, J.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 965 (1970), but we think it is clear what the ordinance as a whole prohibits. Designed, according to its preamble, "for the protection of Schools," the ordinance forbids deliberately noisy or diversionary... activity that disrupts or is about to disrupt normal school activities. It forbids this willful activity at fixed times--when school is in session--and at a sufficiently fixed place--"adjacent" to the school. ... Were we left with just the words of the ordinance, we might be troubled by the imprecision of the phrase "tends to disturb." ... However, in Chicago v. Meyer, 44 Ill. 2d 1, 4, 253 N. E. 2d 400, 402 (1969), and Chicago v. Gregory, 39 Ill. 2d 47, 233 N. E. 2d 422 (1968), reversed on other grounds, 394 U.S. 111 (1969), the Supreme Court of Illinois construed a Chicago ordinance prohibiting, inter alia, a "diversion tending to disturb the peace," and held that it permitted conviction only where there was " imminent threat of violence." (Emphasis supplied.) See Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S. 111, 116-117, 121-122 (1969) (Black, J., concurring). ... Since Meyer was specifically cited in the opinion below, and it in turn drew heavily on Gregory, we think it proper to conclude that the Supreme Court of Illinois would interpret the Rockford ordinance to prohibit only actual or imminent interference with the "peace or good order" of the school....

Although the prohibited quantum of disturbance is not specified in the ordinance, it is apparent from the statute's announced purpose that the measure is whether normal school activity has been or is about to be disrupted. We do not have here a vague, general "breach of the peace" ordinance, but a statute written specifically for the school context, where the prohibited disturbances are easily measured by their impact on the normal activities of the school. Given this "particular context," the ordinance gives "fair notice to those to whom [it] is directed."... Although the Rockford ordinance may not be as precise as the statute we upheld in Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611 (1968)--which prohibited picketing "in such a manner as to obstruct or unreasonably interfere with free ingress or egress to and from" any courthouse--we think that, as in Cameron, the ordinance here clearly "delineates its reach in words of common understanding." Id., at 616.

Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965), and Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971), on which appellant particularly relies, presented completely different situations. In Cox, a general breach of the peace ordinance had been construed by state courts to mean, "to agitate, to arouse from a state of repose, to molest, to interrupt, to hinder, to disquiet." The Court correctly concluded that, as construed, the ordinance permitted persons to be punished for merely expressing unpopular views.... In Coates, the ordinance punished the sidewalk assembly of three or more persons who "conduct themselves in a manner annoying to persons passing by ..." We held, in part, that the ordinance was impermissibly vague because enforcement depended on the completely subjective standard of "annoyance."

In contrast, Rockford's antinoise ordinance does not permit punishment for the expression of an unpopular point of view, and it contains no broad invitation to subjective or discriminatory enforcement. Rockford does not claim the broad power to punish all "noises" and "diversions." ... The vagueness of these terms, by themselves, is dispelled by the ordinance's requirements that (1) the "noise or diversion" be actually incompatible with normal school activity; (2) there be a demonstrated causality between the disruption that occurs and the "noise or diversion"; and (3) the acts be "willfully" done.... "Undesirables " or their "annoying" conduct may not be punished. The ordinance does not permit people to "stand on a public sidewalk ... only at the whim of any police officer."... Rather, there must be demonstrated interference with school activities. As always, enforcement requires the exercise of some degree of police judgment, but, as confined, that degree of judgment here is permissible. The Rockford City Council has made the basic policy choices, and has given fair warning as to what is prohibited. "The ordinance defines boundaries sufficiently distinct" for citizens, policemen, juries, and appellate judges. ... It is not impermissibly vague.

B. Overbreadth

A clear and precise enactment may nevertheless be "overbroad" if in its reach it prohibits constitutionally protected conduct.... Although appellant does not claim that, as applied to him,  the antinoise ordinance has punished protected expressive activity, he claims that the ordinance is overbroad on its face. Because overbroad laws, like vague ones, deter privileged activity, our cases firmly establish appellant's standing to raise an overbreadth challenge.... The crucial question, then, is whether the ordinance sweeps within its prohibitions what may not be punished under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, appellant contends that the Rockford ordinance unduly interferes with First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to picket on a public sidewalk near a school. We disagree.

In considering the right of a municipality to control the use of public streets for the expression of religious [or political] views, we start with the words of Mr. Justice Roberts that 'Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.' Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939)." Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290, 293 (1951). See Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 152 (1969). The right to use a public place for expressive activity may be restricted only for weighty reasons.

Clearly, government has no power to restrict such activity because of its message.... Our cases make equally clear, however, that reasonable "time, place and manner" regulations may be necessary to further significant governmental interests, and are permitted.... For example, two parades cannot march on the same street simultaneously, and government may allow only one. Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 576 (1941). A demonstration or parade on a large street during rush hour might put an intolerable burden on the essential flow of traffic, and for that reason could be prohibited. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S., at 554. If overamplified loudspeakers assault the citizenry, government may turn them down. Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (1949); Saia v. New York, 334 U.S. 558, 562 (1948). Subject to such reasonable regulation, however, peaceful demonstrations in public places are protected by the First Amendment... Of course, where demonstrations turn violent, they lose their protected quality as expression under the First Amendment....

The nature of a place, "the pattern of its normal activities, dictate the kinds of regulations of time, place, and manner that are reasonable."... Although a silent vigil may not unduly interfere with a public library, Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (1966), making a speech in the reading room almost certainly would. That same speech should be perfectly appropriate in a park. The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time. Our cases make clear that in assessing the reasonableness of a regulation, we must weigh heavily the fact that communication is involved; ... the regulation must be narrowly tailored to further the State's legitimate interest.... Access to the "streets, sidewalks, parks, and other similar public places ... for the purpose of exercising [First Amendment rights] cannot constitutionally be denied broadly ...."... Free expression "must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied." ...

In light of these general principles, we do not think that Rockford's ordinance is an unconstitutional regulation of activity around a school. Our touchstone is Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), in which we considered the question of how to accommodate First Amendment rights with the "special characteristics of the school environment." Id., at 506. Tinker held that the Des Moines School District could not punish students for wearing black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War. Recognizing that "wide exposure to ... robust exchange of ideas" is an "important part of the educational process" and should be nurtured, id., at 512, we concluded that free expression could not be barred from the school campus. We made clear that "undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression," id., at 508, ... and that particular expressive activity could not be prohibited because of a "mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," id., at 509. But we nowhere suggested that students, teachers, or anyone else has an absolute constitutional right to use all parts of a school building or its immediate environs for his unlimited expressive purposes. Expressive activity could certainly be restricted, but only if the forbidden conduct "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others." Id., at 513. The wearing of armbands was protected in Tinker because the students "neither interrupted school activities nor sought to intrude in the school affairs or the lives of others. They caused discussion outside of the classrooms, but no interference with work and no disorder." Id., at 514. Compare Burnside v. Byars, 363 F.2d 744 (CA5 1966), and Butts v. Dallas Ind. School District, 436 F.2d 728 (CA5 1971), with Blackwell v. Issaquena County Board of Education, 363 F.2d 749 (CA5 1966). 

Just as Tinker made clear that school property may not be declared off limits for expressive activity by students, we think it clear that the public sidewalk adjacent to school grounds may not be declared off limits for expressive activity by members of the public. But in each case, expressive activity may be prohibited if it "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others." Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S., at 513....

We would be ignoring reality if we did not recognize that the public schools in a community are important institutions, and are often the focus of significant grievances.... Without interfering with normal school activities, daytime picketing and handbilling on public grounds near a school can effectively publicize those grievances to pedestrians, school visitors, and deliverymen, as well as to teachers, administrators, and students. Some picketing to that end will be quiet and peaceful, and will in no way disturb the normal functioning of the school. For example, it would be highly unusual if the classic expressive gesture of the solitary picket disrupts anything related to the school, at least on a public sidewalk open to pedestrians.... On the other hand, schools could hardly tolerate boisterous demonstrators who drown out classroom conversation, make studying impossible, block entrances, or incite children to leave the schoolhouse....

Rockford's antinoise ordinance goes no further than Tinker says a municipality may go to prevent interference with its schools. It is narrowly tailored to further Rockford's compelling interest in having an undisrupted school session conducive to the students' learning, and does not unnecessarily interfere with First Amendment rights. Far from having an impermissibly broad prophylactic ordinance,.... Rockford punishes only conduct which disrupts or is about to disrupt normal school activities. That decision is made, as it should be, on an individualized basis, given the particular fact situation. Peaceful picketing which does not interfere with the ordinary functioning of the school is permitted. And the ordinance gives no license to punish anyone because of what he is saying. ...

We recognize that the ordinance prohibits some picketing that is neither violent nor physically obstructive. Noisy demonstrations that disrupt or are incompatible with normal school activities are obviously within the ordinance's reach. Such expressive conduct may be constitutionally protected at other places or other times, cf. Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965), but next to a school, while classes are in session, it may be prohibited.... The antinoise ordinance imposes no such restriction on expressive activity before or after the school session, while the student/faculty "audience" enters and leaves the school.

In Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965), this Court indicated that, because of the special nature of the place, ... persons could be constitutionally prohibited from picketing "in or near" a courthouse "with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice." Likewise, in Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611 (1968), we upheld a statute prohibiting picketing "in such a manner as to obstruct or unreasonably interfere with free ingress or egress to and from any ... county ... courthouses."... As in those two cases, Rockford's modest restriction on some peaceful picketing represents a considered and specific legislative judgment that some kinds of expressive activity should be restricted at a particular time and place, here in order to protect the schools. ... Such a reasonable regulation is not inconsistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments.... The antinoise ordinance is not invalid on its face. ...

The judgment is

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.


MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting in part.

While I join Part I of the Court's opinion, I would also reverse the appellant's conviction under the antinoise ordinance....

Appellant was one of 200 people picketing a school and carrying signs promoting a black cause--"Black cheerleaders to cheer too," "Black history with black teachers," "We want our rights," and the like. Appellant, however, did not himself carry a picket sign. There was no evidence that he yelled or made any noise whatsoever. Indeed, the evidence reveals that appellant simply marched quietly and on one occasion raised his arm in the "power to the people" salute.

The pickets  were mostly students; but they included former students, parents of students, and concerned citizens. They had made proposals to the school board on their demands and were turned down. Hence the picketing. The picketing was mostly by black students who were counseled and advised by a faculty member of the school. The school contained 1,800 students. Those counseling the students advised they must be quiet, walk hand in hand, no whispering, no talking.

Twenty-five policemen were stationed nearby. There was noise but most of it was produced by the police who used loudspeakers to explain the local ordinance and to announce that arrests might be made. The picketing did not stop, and some 40 demonstrators, including appellant, were arrested.

The picketing lasted 20 to 30 minutes and some students went to the windows of the classrooms to observe it. It is not clear how many there were. The picketing was, however, orderly or, as one officer testified, "very orderly." There was no violence. And appellant made no noise whatever.

What Mr. Justice Roberts said in Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515-516, has never been questioned:

"Wherever  the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied."

We held in Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 544-545, that a State could not infringe the right of free speech and free assembly by convicting demonstrators under a "disturbing the peace" ordinance where all that the students in that case did was to protest segregation and discrimination against blacks by peaceably assembling and marching to the courthouse where they sang, prayed, and listened to a speech, but where there was no violence, no rioting, no boisterous conduct.

The school where the present picketing occurred was the center of a racial conflict. Most of the pickets were indeed students in the school. The dispute doubtless disturbed the school; and the blaring of the loudspeakers of the police was certainly a "noise or diversion" in the meaning of the ordinance. But there was no evidence that appellant was noisy or boisterous or rowdy. He walked quietly and in an orderly manner. As I read this record, the disruptive force loosed at this school was an issue dealing with race--an issue that is preeminently one for solution by First Amendment means.... That is all that was done here; and the entire picketing, including appellant's part in it, was done in the best First Amendment tradition.

Author's Note--Correction

The following case is associated with  Webnote B on page 46.

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.

    Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.

The question before the Court is the validity of a Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct.

In Houston, Texas, officers of the Harris County Police Department were dispatched to a private residence in response to a reported weapons disturbance. They entered an apartment where one of the petitioners, John Geddes Lawrence, resided. The right of the police to enter does not seem to have been questioned. The officers observed Lawrence and another man, Tyron Garner, engaging in a sexual act. The two petitioners were arrested, held in custody over night, and charged and convicted before a Justice of the Peace.

The complaints described their crime as "deviate sexual intercourse, namely anal sex, with a member of the same sex (man)." App. to Pet. for Cert. 127a, 139a. The applicable state law is Tex. Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003). It provides: "A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex." The statute defines "[d]eviate sexual intercourse" as follows:

"(A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or"

"(B) the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object." §21.01(1).

The petitioners exercised their right to a trial de novo in Harris County Criminal Court. They challenged the statute as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and of a like provision of the Texas Constitution. Tex. Const., Art. 1, §3a. Those contentions were rejected. The petitioners, having entered a plea of nolo contendere, were each fined $200 and assessed court costs of $141.25. App. to Pet. for Cert. 107a-110a.

The Court of Appeals for the Texas Fourteenth District considered the petitioners' federal constitutional arguments under both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. After hearing the case en banc the court, in a divided opinion, rejected the constitutional arguments and affirmed the convictions. 41 S. W. 3d 349 (Tex. App. 2001). The majority opinion indicates that the Court of Appeals considered our decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186 (1986), to be controlling on the federal due process aspect of the case. Bowers then being authoritative, this was proper.

We granted certiorari, 537 U. S. 1044 (2002), to consider three questions:

"1. Whether Petitioners' criminal convictions under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law--which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples--violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws?"

"2. Whether Petitioners' criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?"

"3. Whether Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186 (1986), should be overruled?" Pet. for Cert. i.

The petitioners were adults at the time of the alleged offense. Their conduct was in private and consensual.

We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. For this inquiry we deem it necessary to reconsider the Court's holding in Bowers.

There are broad statements of the substantive reach of liberty under the Due Process Clause in earlier cases, including Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925), and Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1923); but the most pertinent beginning point is our decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965).

In Griswold the Court invalidated a state law prohibiting the use of drugs or devices of contraception and counseling or aiding and abetting the use of contraceptives. The Court described the protected interest as a right to privacy and placed emphasis on the marriage relation and the protected space of the marital bedroom. Id., at 485.

After Griswold it was established that the right to make certain decisions regarding sexual conduct extends beyond the marital relationship. In Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972), the Court invalidated a law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons. The case was decided under the Equal Protection Clause, id., at 454; but with respect to unmarried persons, the Court went on to state the fundamental proposition that the law impaired the exercise of their personal rights, ibid. It quoted from the statement of the Court of Appeals finding the law to be in conflict with fundamental human rights, and it followed with this statement of its own:

"It is true that in Griswold the right of privacy in question inhered in the marital relationship.... If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Id., at 453.

The opinions in Griswold and Eisenstadt were part of the background for the decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973). As is well known, the case involved a challenge to the Texas law prohibiting abortions, but the laws of other States were affected as well. Although the Court held the woman's rights were not absolute, her right to elect an abortion did have real and substantial protection as an exercise of her liberty under the Due Process Clause. The Court cited cases that protect spatial freedom and cases that go well beyond it. Roe recognized the right of a woman to make certain fundamental decisions affecting her destiny and confirmed once more that the protection of liberty under the Due Process Clause has a substantive dimension of fundamental significance in defining the rights of the person.

In Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431 U. S. 678 (1977), the Court confronted a New York law forbidding sale or distribution of contraceptive devices to persons under 16 years of age. Although there was no single opinion for the Court, the law was invalidated. Both Eisenstadt and Carey, as well as the holding and rationale in Roe, confirmed that the reasoning of Griswold could not be confined to the protection of rights of married adults. This was the state of the law with respect to some of the most relevant cases when the Court considered Bowers v. Hardwick.

The facts in Bowers had some similarities to the instant case. A police officer, whose right to enter seems not to have been in question, observed Hardwick, in his own bedroom, engaging in intimate sexual conduct with another adult male. The conduct was in violation of a Georgia statute making it a criminal offense to engage in sodomy. One difference between the two cases is that the Georgia statute prohibited the conduct whether or not the participants were of the same sex, while the Texas statute, as we have seen, applies only to participants of the same sex. Hardwick was not prosecuted, but he brought an action in federal court to declare the state statute invalid. He alleged he was a practicing homosexual and that the criminal prohibition violated rights guaranteed to him by the Constitution. The Court, in an opinion by Justice White, sustained the Georgia law. Chief Justice Burger and Justice Powell joined the opinion of the Court and filed separate, concurring opinions. Four Justices dissented. 478 U. S., at 199 (opinion of Blackmun, J., joined by Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens, JJ.); id., at 214 (opinion of Stevens, J., joined by Brennan and Marshall, JJ.).

The Court began its substantive discussion in Bowers as follows: "The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy and hence invalidates the laws of the many States that still make such conduct illegal and have done so for a very long time." Id., at 190. That statement, we now conclude, discloses the Court's own failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse. The laws involved in Bowers and here are, to be sure, statutes that purport to do no more than prohibit a particular sexual act. Their penalties and purposes, though, have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. The statutes do seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals.

This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the State, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects. It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.

Having misapprehended the claim of liberty there presented to it, and thus stating the claim to be whether there is a fundamental right to engage in consensual sodomy, the Bowers Court said: "Proscriptions against that conduct have ancient roots." Id., at 192. In academic writings, and in many of the scholarly amicus briefs filed to assist the Court in this case, there are fundamental criticisms of the historical premises relied upon by the majority and concurring opinions in Bowers. Brief for Cato Institute as Amicus Curiae 16-17; Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 15-21; Brief for Professors of History et al. as Amici Curiae 3-10. We need not enter this debate in the attempt to reach a definitive historical judgment, but the following considerations counsel against adopting the definitive conclusions upon which Bowers placed such reliance. 

At the outset it should be noted that there is no longstanding history in this country of laws directed at homosexual conduct as a distinct matter. Beginning in colonial times there were prohibitions of sodomy derived from the English criminal laws passed in the first instance by the Reformation Parliament of 1533. The English prohibition was understood to include relations between men and women as well as relations between men and men. See, e.g., King v. Wiseman, 92 Eng. Rep. 774, 775 (K. B. 1718) (interpreting "mankind" in Act of 1533 as including women and girls). Nineteenth-century commentators similarly read American sodomy, buggery, and crime-against-nature statutes as criminalizing certain relations between men and women and between men and men. See, e.g., 2 J. Bishop, Criminal Law §1028 (1858); 2 J. Chitty, Criminal Law 47-50 (5th Am. ed. 1847); R. Desty, A Compendium of American Criminal Law 143 (1882); J. May, The Law of Crimes §203 (2d ed. 1893). The absence of legal prohibitions focusing on homosexual conduct may be explained in part by noting that according to some scholars the concept of the homosexual as a distinct category of person did not emerge until the late 19th century. See, e.g., J. Katz, The Invention of Heterosexuality 10 (1995); J. D'Emilio & E. Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America 121 (2d ed. 1997) ("The modern terms homosexuality and heterosexuality do not apply to an era that had not yet articulated these distinctions"). Thus early American sodomy laws were not directed at homosexuals as such but instead sought to prohibit nonprocreative sexual activity more generally. This does not suggest approval of homosexual conduct. It does tend to show that this particular form of conduct was not thought of as a separate category from like conduct between heterosexual persons.

Laws prohibiting sodomy do not seem to have been enforced against consenting adults acting in private. A substantial number of sodomy prosecutions and convictions for which there are surviving records were for predatory acts against those who could not or did not consent, as in the case of a minor or the victim of an assault. As to these, one purpose for the prohibitions was to ensure there would be no lack of coverage if a predator committed a sexual assault that did not constitute rape as defined by the criminal law. Thus the model sodomy indictments presented in a 19th-century treatise, see 2 Chitty, supra, at 49, addressed the predatory acts of an adult man against a minor girl or minor boy. Instead of targeting relations between consenting adults in private, 19th-century sodomy prosecutions typically involved relations between men and minor girls or minor boys, relations between adults involving force, relations between adults implicating disparity in status, or relations between men and animals.

To the extent that there were any prosecutions for the acts in question, 19th-century evidence rules imposed a burden that would make a conviction more difficult to obtain even taking into account the problems always inherent in prosecuting consensual acts committed in private. Under then-prevailing standards, a man could not be convicted of sodomy based upon testimony of a consenting partner, because the partner was considered an accomplice. A partner's testimony, however, was admissible if he or she had not consented to the act or was a minor, and therefore incapable of consent. See, e.g., F. Wharton, Criminal Law 443 (2d ed. 1852); 1 F. Wharton, Criminal Law 512 (8th ed. 1880). The rule may explain in part the infrequency of these prosecutions. In all events that infrequency makes it difficult to say that society approved of a rigorous and systematic punishment of the consensual acts committed in private and by adults. The longstanding criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy upon which the Bowers decision placed such reliance is as consistent with a general condemnation of nonprocreative sex as it is with an established tradition of prosecuting acts because of their homosexual character.

The policy of punishing consenting adults for private acts was not much discussed in the early legal literature. We can infer that one reason for this was the very private nature of the conduct. Despite the absence of prosecutions, there may have been periods in which there was public criticism of homosexuals as such and an insistence that the criminal laws be enforced to discourage their practices. But far from possessing "ancient roots," Bowers, 478 U. S., at 192, American laws targeting same-sex couples did not develop until the last third of the 20th century. The reported decisions concerning the prosecution of consensual, homosexual sodomy between adults for the years 1880-1995 are not always clear in the details, but a significant number involved conduct in a public place. See Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 14-15, and n. 18.

It was not until the 1970s that any State singled out same-sex relations for criminal prosecution, and only nine States have done so. See 1977 Ark. Gen. Acts no. 828; 1983 Kan. Sess. Laws p. 652; 1974 Ky. Acts p. 847; 1977 Mo. Laws p. 687; 1973 Mont. Laws p. 1339; 1977 Nev. Stats. p. 1632; 1989 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 591; 1973 Tex. Gen. Laws ch. 399; see also Post v. State, 715 P. 2d 1105 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986) (sodomy law invalidated as applied to different-sex couples). Post-Bowers even some of these States did not adhere to the policy of suppressing homosexual conduct. Over the course of the last decades, States with same-sex prohibitions have moved toward abolishing them. See, e.g., Jegley v. Picado, 349 Ark. 600, 80 S. W. 3d 332 (2002); Gryczan v. State, 283 Mont. 433, 942 P. 2d 112 (1997); Campbell v. Sundquist, 926 S. W. 2d 250 (Tenn. App. 1996); Commonwealth v. Wasson, 842 S. W. 2d 487 (Ky. 1992); see also 1993 Nev. Stats. p. 518 (repealing Nev. Rev. Stat. §201.193).

In summary, the historical grounds relied upon in Bowers are more complex than the majority opinion and the concurring opinion by Chief Justice Burger indicate. Their historical premises are not without doubt and, at the very least, are overstated.

It must be acknowledged, of course, that the Court in Bowers was making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives. These considerations do not answer the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law. "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 850 (1992).

Chief Justice Burger joined the opinion for the Court in Bowers and further explained his views as follows: "Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeao-Christian moral and ethical standards." 478 U. S., at 196. As with Justice White's assumptions about history, scholarship casts some doubt on the sweeping nature of the statement by Chief Justice Burger as it pertains to private homosexual conduct between consenting adults. See, e.g., Eskridge, Hardwick and Historiography, 1999 U. Ill. L. Rev. 631, 656. In all events we think that our laws and traditions in the past half century are of most relevance here. These references show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex. "[H]istory and tradition are the starting point but not in all cases the ending point of the substantive due process inquiry." County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U. S. 833, 857 (1998) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

This emerging recognition should have been apparent when Bowers was decided. In 1955 the American Law Institute promulgated the Model Penal Code and made clear that it did not recommend or provide for "criminal penalties for consensual sexual relations conducted in private." ALI, Model Penal Code §213.2, Comment 2, p. 372 (1980). It justified its decision on three grounds: (1) The prohibitions undermined respect for the law by penalizing conduct many people engaged in; (2) the statutes regulated private conduct not harmful to others; and (3) the laws were arbitrarily enforced and thus invited the danger of blackmail. ALI, Model Penal Code, Commentary 277-280 (Tent. Draft No. 4, 1955). In 1961 Illinois changed its laws to conform to the Model Penal Code. Other States soon followed. Brief for Cato Institute as Amicus Curiae 15-16.

In Bowers the Court referred to the fact that before 1961 all 50 States had outlawed sodomy, and that at the time of the Court's decision 24 States and the District of Columbia had sodomy laws. 478 U. S., at 192-193. Justice Powell pointed out that these prohibitions often were being ignored, however. Georgia, for instance, had not sought to enforce its law for decades. Id., at 197-198, n. 2 ("The history of nonenforcement suggests the moribund character today of laws criminalizing this type of private, consensual conduct").

The sweeping references by Chief Justice Burger to the history of Western civilization and to Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards did not take account of other authorities pointing in an opposite direction. A committee advising the British Parliament recommended in 1957 repeal of laws punishing homosexual conduct. The Wolfenden Report: Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offenses and Prostitution (1963). Parliament enacted the substance of those recommendations 10 years later. Sexual Offences Act 1967, §1.

Of even more importance, almost five years before Bowers was decided the European Court of Human Rights considered a case with parallels to Bowers and to today's case. An adult male resident in Northern Ireland alleged he was a practicing homosexual who desired to engage in consensual homosexual conduct. The laws of Northern Ireland forbade him that right. He alleged that he had been questioned, his home had been searched, and he feared criminal prosecution. The court held that the laws proscribing the conduct were invalid under the European Convention on Human Rights. Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, 45 Eur. Ct. H. R. (1981) ¶ ;52. Authoritative in all countries that are members of the Council of Europe (21 nations then, 45 nations now), the decision is at odds with the premise in Bowers that the claim put forward was insubstantial in our Western civilization.

In our own constitutional system the deficiencies in Bowers became even more apparent in the years following its announcement. The 25 States with laws prohibiting the relevant conduct referenced in the Bowers decision are reduced now to 13, of which 4 enforce their laws only against homosexual conduct. In those States where sodomy is still proscribed, whether for same-sex or heterosexual conduct, there is a pattern of nonenforcement with respect to consenting adults acting in private. The State of Texas admitted in 1994 that as of that date it had not prosecuted anyone under those circumstances. State v. Morales, 869 S. W. 2d 941, 943.

Two principal cases decided after Bowers cast its holding into even more doubt. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), the Court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:

"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State." Ibid.

Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. The decision in Bowers would deny them this right.

The second post-Bowers case of principal relevance is Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620 (1996). There the Court struck down class-based legislation directed at homosexuals as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Romer invalidated an amendment to Colorado's constitution which named as a solitary class persons who were homosexuals, lesbians, or bisexual either by "orientation, conduct, practices or relationships," id., at 624 (internal quotation marks omitted), and deprived them of protection under state antidiscrimination laws. We concluded that the provision was "born of animosity toward the class of persons affected" and further that it had no rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose. Id., at 634.

As an alternative argument in this case, counsel for the petitioners and some amici contend that Romer provides the basis for declaring the Texas statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause. That is a tenable argument, but we conclude the instant case requires us to address whether Bowers itself has continuing validity. Were we to hold the statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause some might question whether a prohibition would be valid if drawn differently, say, to prohibit the conduct both between same-sex and different-sex participants.

Equality of treatment and the due process right to demand respect for conduct protected by the substantive guarantee of liberty are linked in important respects, and a decision on the latter point advances both interests. If protected conduct is made criminal and the law which does so remains unexamined for its substantive validity, its stigma might remain even if it were not enforceable as drawn for equal protection reasons. When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres. The central holding of Bowers has been brought in question by this case, and it should be addressed. Its continuance as precedent demeans the lives of homosexual persons.

The stigma this criminal statute imposes, moreover, is not trivial. The offense, to be sure, is but a class C misdemeanor, a minor offense in the Texas legal system. Still, it remains a criminal offense with all that imports for the dignity of the persons charged. The petitioners will bear on their record the history of their criminal convictions. Just this Term we rejected various challenges to state laws requiring the registration of sex offenders. Smith v. Doe, 538 U. S. __ (2003); Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U. S. 1 (2003). We are advised that if Texas convicted an adult for private, consensual homosexual conduct under the statute here in question the convicted person would come within the registration laws of a least four States were he or she to be subject to their jurisdiction. Pet. for Cert. 13, and n. 12 (citing Idaho Code §§18-8301 to 18-8326 (Cum. Supp. 2002); La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., §§15:540-15:549 (West 2003); Miss. Code Ann. §§45-33-21 to 45-33-57 (Lexis 2003); S. C. Code Ann. §§23-3-400 to 23-3-490 (West 2002)). This underscores the consequential nature of the punishment and the state-sponsored condemnation attendant to the criminal prohibition. Furthermore, the Texas criminal conviction carries with it the other collateral consequences always following a conviction, such as notations on job application forms, to mention but one example.

The foundations of Bowers have sustained serious erosion from our recent decisions in Casey and Romer. When our precedent has been thus weakened, criticism from other sources is of greater significance. In the United States criticism of Bowers has been substantial and continuing, disapproving of its reasoning in all respects, not just as to its historical assumptions. See, e.g., C. Fried, Order and Law: Arguing the Reagan Revolution--A Firsthand Account 81-84 (1991); R. Posner, Sex and Reason 341-350 (1992). The courts of five different States have declined to follow it in interpreting provisions in their own state constitutions parallel to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Jegley v. Picado, 349 Ark. 600, 80 S. W. 3d 332 (2002); Powell v. State, 270 Ga. 327, 510 S. E. 2d 18, 24 (1998); Gryczan v. State, 283 Mont. 433, 942 P. 2d 112 (1997); Campbell v. Sundquist, 926 S. W. 2d 250 (Tenn. App. 1996); Commonwealth v. Wasson, 842 S. W. 2d 487 (Ky. 1992).

To the extent Bowers relied on values we share with a wider civilization, it should be noted that the reasoning and holding in Bowers have been rejected elsewhere. The European Court of Human Rights has followed not Bowers but its own decision in Dudgeon v. United Kingdom. See P. G. & J. H. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 00044787/98, ¶ ;56 (Eur. Ct. H. R., Sept. 25, 2001); Modinos v. Cyprus, 259 Eur. Ct. H. R. (1993); Norris v. Ireland, 142 Eur. Ct. H. R. (1988). Other nations, too, have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. See Brief for Mary Robinson et al. as Amici Curiae 11-12. The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries. There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent.

The doctrine of stare decisis is essential to the respect accorded to the judgments of the Court and to the stability of the law. It is not, however, an inexorable command. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 828 (1991) ("Stare decisis is not an inexorable command; rather, it 'is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision'") (quoting Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U. S. 106, 119 (1940))). In Casey we noted that when a Court is asked to overrule a precedent recognizing a constitutional liberty interest, individual or societal reliance on the existence of that liberty cautions with particular strength against reversing course. 505 U. S., at 855-856; see also id., at 844 ("Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt"). The holding in Bowers, however, has not induced detrimental reliance comparable to some instances where recognized individual rights are involved. Indeed, there has been no individual or societal reliance on Bowers of the sort that could counsel against overturning its holding once there are compelling reasons to do so. Bowers itself causes uncertainty, for the precedents before and after its issuance contradict its central holding.

The rationale of Bowers does not withstand careful analysis. In his dissenting opinion in Bowers Justice Stevens came to these conclusions:

"Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons." 478 U. S., at 216 (footnotes and citations omitted).

Justice Stevens' analysis, in our view, should have been controlling in Bowers and should control here.

Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. "It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter." Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Texas Fourteenth District is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered

Back to Top

The following case is associated with  Webnote C on page 46.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This appeal by various administrators of the Columbus, Ohio, Public School System (CPSS) challenges the judgment of a three-judge federal court, declaring that appellees--various high school students in the CPSS--were denied due process of law contrary to the command of the Fourteenth Amendment in that they were temporarily suspended from their high schools without a hearing either prior to suspension or within a reasonable time thereafter, and enjoining the administrators to remove all references to such suspensions from the students' records.

Ohio law, Rev. Code Ann. § 3313.64 (1972), provides for free education to all children between the ages of six and 21. Section 3313.66 of the Code empowers the principal of an Ohio public school to suspend a pupil for misconduct for up to 10 days or to expel him. In either case, he must notify the student's parents within 24 hours and state the reasons for his action. A pupil who is expelled, or his parents, may appeal the decision to the Board of Education and in connection therewith shall be permitted to be heard at the board meeting. The Board may reinstate the pupil following the hearing. No similar procedure is provided in § 3313.66 or any other provision of state law for a suspended student. Aside from a regulation tracking the statute, at the time of the imposition of the suspensions in this case the CPSS itself had not issued any written procedure applicable to suspensions.... Nor, so far as the record reflects, had any of the individual high schools involved in this case.... Each, however, had formally or informally described the conduct for which suspension could be imposed.

The nine named appellees, each of whom alleged that he or she had been suspended from public high school in Columbus for up to 10 days without a hearing pursuant to § 3313.66, filed an action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against the Columbus Board of Education and various administrators of the CPSS. The complaint sought a declaration that § 3313.66 was unconstitutional in that it permitted public school administrators to deprive plaintiffs of their rights to an education without a hearing of any kind, in violation of the procedural due process component of the Fourteenth Amendment. It also sought to enjoin the public school officials from issuing future suspensions pursuant to § 3313.66 and to require them to remove references to the past suspensions from the records of the students in question....

The proof below established that the suspensions arose out of a period of widespread student unrest in the CPSS during February and March 1971. Six of the named plaintiffs, Rudolph Sutton, Tyrone Washington, Susan Cooper, Deborah Fox, Clarence Byars, and Bruce Harris, were students at the Marion-Franklin High School and were each suspended for 10 days... on account of disruptive or disobedient conduct committed in the presence of the school administrator who ordered the suspension. One of these, Tyrone Washington, was among a group of students demonstrating in the school auditorium while a class was being conducted there. He was ordered by the school principal to leave, refused to do so, and was suspended. Rudolph Sutton, in the presence of the principal, physically attacked a police officer who was attempting to remove Tyrone Washington from the auditorium. He was immediately suspended. The other four Marion-Franklin students were suspended for similar conduct. None was given a hearing to determine the operative facts underlying the suspension, but each, together with his or her parents, was offered the opportunity to attend a conference, subsequent  to the effective date of the suspension, to discuss the student's future.

Two named plaintiffs, Dwight Lopez and Betty Crome, were students at the Central High School and McGuffey Junior High School, respectively. The former was suspended in connection with a disturbance in the lunchroom which involved some physical damage to school property.... Lopez testified that at least 75 other students were suspended from his school on the same day. He also testified below that he was not a party to the destructive conduct but was instead an innocent bystander. Because no one from the school testified with regard to this incident, there is no evidence in the record indicating the official basis for concluding otherwise. Lopez never had a hearing.

Betty Crome was present at a demonstration at a high school other than the one she was attending. There she was arrested together with others, taken to the police station, and released without being formally charged. Before she went to school on the following day, she was notified that she had been suspended for a 10-day period. Because no one from the school testified with respect to this incident, the record does not disclose how the McGuffey Junior High School principal went about making the decision to suspend Crome, nor does it disclose on what information the decision was based. It is clear from the record that no hearing was ever held....

At the outset, appellants contend that because there is no constitutional right to an education at public expense, the Due Process Clause does not protect against expulsions from the public school system. This position misconceives the nature of the issue and is refuted by prior decisions. The Fourteenth Amendment forbids the State to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Protected interests in property are normally "not created by the Constitution. Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined" by an independent source such as state statutes or rules entitling the citizen to certain benefits.....

Although Ohio may not be constitutionally obligated to establish and maintain a public school system, it has nevertheless done so and has required its children to attend. Those young people do not "shed their constitutional rights" at the schoolhouse door. Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969). "The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures--Boards of Education not excepted." West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 637 (1943). The authority possessed by the State to prescribe and enforce standards of conduct in its schools although concededly very broad, must be exercised consistently with constitutional safeguards. Among other things, the State is constrained to recognize a student's legitimate entitlement to a public education as a property interest which is protected by the Due Process Clause and which may not be taken away for misconduct without adherence to the minimum procedures required by that Clause.

The Due Process Clause also forbids arbitrary deprivations of liberty. "Where a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him," the minimal requirements of the Clause must be satisfied. Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 437 (1971); Board of Regents v. Roth, supra, at 573. School authorities here suspended appellees from school for periods of up to 10 days based on charges of misconduct. If sustained  and recorded, those charges could seriously damage the students' standing with their fellow pupils and their teachers as well as interfere with later opportunities for higher education and employment..... It is apparent that the claimed right of the State to determine unilaterally and without process whether that misconduct has occurred immediately collides with the requirements of the Constitution.....

A short suspension is, of course, a far milder deprivation than expulsion. But, "education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments,"... and the total exclusion from the educational process for more than a trivial period, and certainly if the suspension is for 10 days, is a serious event in the life of the suspended child. Neither the property interest in educational benefits temporarily denied nor the liberty interest in reputation, which is also implicated, is so insubstantial that suspensions may constitutionally be imposed by any procedure the school chooses, no matter how arbitrary....

.... At the very minimum, therefore, students facing suspension and the consequent interference with a protected property interest must be given some kind of notice and afforded some kind of hearing. "Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they must first be notified."...

It also appears from our cases that the timing and content of the notice and the nature of the hearing will depend on appropriate accommodation of the competing interests involved..... The student's interest is to avoid unfair or mistaken exclusion from the educational process, with all of its unfortunate consequences. The Due Process Clause will not shield him from suspensions properly imposed, but it disserves both his interest and the interest of the State if his suspension is in fact unwarranted. The concern would be mostly academic if the disciplinary process were a totally accurate, unerring process, never mistaken and never unfair. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and no one suggests that it is. Disciplinarians, although proceeding in utmost good faith, frequently act on the reports and advice of others; and the controlling facts and the nature of the conduct under challenge are often disputed. The risk of error is not at all trivial, and it should be guarded against if that may be done without prohibitive cost or interference with the educational process.

The difficulty is that our schools are vast and complex. Some modicum of discipline and order is essential if the educational function is to be performed. Events calling for discipline are frequent occurrences and sometimes require immediate, effective action. Suspension is considered not only to be a necessary tool to maintain order but a valuable educational device. The prospect of imposing elaborate hearing requirements in every suspension case is viewed with great concern, and many school authorities may well prefer the untrammeled power to act unilaterally, unhampered by rules about notice and hearing. But it would be a strange disciplinary system in an educational institution if no communication was sought by the disciplinarian with the student in an effort to inform him of his dereliction and to let him tell his side of the story in order to make sure that an injustice is not done. "[Fairness] can rarely be obtained by secret, one-sided determination of facts decisive of rights...." "Secrecy is not congenial to truth-seeking and self-righteousness gives too slender an assurance of rightness. No better instrument has been devised for arriving at truth than to give a person in jeopardy of serious loss notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it."....

We do not believe that school authorities must be totally free from notice and hearing requirements if their schools are to operate with acceptable efficiency. Students facing temporary suspension have interests qualifying for protection of the Due Process Clause, and due process requires, in connection with a suspension of 10 days or less, that the student be given oral or written notice of the charges against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story. The Clause requires at least these rudimentary precautions against unfair or mistaken findings of misconduct and arbitrary exclusion from school....

There need be no delay between the time "notice" is given and the time of the hearing. In the great majority of cases the disciplinarian may informally discuss the alleged misconduct with the student minutes after it has occurred. We hold only that, in being given an opportunity to explain his version of the facts at this discussion, the student first be told what he is accused of doing and what the basis of the accusation is. Lower courts which have addressed the question of the nature of the procedures required in short suspension cases have reached the same conclusion..... Since the hearing may occur almost immediately following the misconduct, it follows that as a general rule notice and hearing should precede removal of the student from school. We agree with the District Court, however, that there are recurring situations in which prior notice and hearing cannot be insisted upon. Students whose presence poses a continuing danger to persons or property or an ongoing threat of disrupting the academic  process may be immediately removed from school. In such cases, the necessary notice and rudimentary hearing should follow as soon as practicable, as the District Court indicated.

In holding as we do, we do not believe that we have imposed procedures on school disciplinarians which are inappropriate in a classroom setting. Instead we have imposed requirements which are, if anything, less than a fair-minded school principal would impose upon himself in order to avoid unfair suspensions. Indeed, according to the testimony of the principal of Marion-Franklin High School, that school had an informal procedure, remarkably similar to that which we now require, applicable to suspensions generally but which was not followed in this case. Similarly, according to the most recent memorandum applicable to the entire CPSS,..., school principals in the CPSS are now required by local rule to provide at least as much as the constitutional minimum which we have described.

We stop short of construing the Due Process Clause to require, countrywide, that hearings in connection with short suspensions must afford the student the opportunity to secure counsel, to confront and cross-examine witnesses supporting the charge, or to call his own witnesses to verify his version of the incident. Brief disciplinary suspensions are almost countless. To impose in each such case even truncated trial-type procedures might well overwhelm administrative facilities in many places and, by diverting resources, cost more than it would save in educational effectiveness. Moreover, further formalizing the suspension process and escalating its formality and adversary nature may not only make it too costly as a regular disciplinary tool but also destroy its effectiveness as part of the teaching process.

On the other hand, requiring effective notice and informal hearing permitting the student to give his version of the events will provide a meaningful hedge against erroneous action. At least the disciplinarian will be alerted to the existence of disputes about facts and arguments about cause and effect. He may then determine himself to summon the accuser, permit cross-examination, and allow the student to present his own witnesses. In more difficult cases, he may permit counsel. In any event, his discretion will be more informed and we think the risk of error substantially reduced.

Requiring that there be at least an informal give-and-take between student and disciplinarian, preferably prior to the suspension, will add little to the factfinding function where the disciplinarian himself has witnessed the conduct forming the basis for the charge. But things are not always as they seem to be, and the student will at least have the opportunity to characterize his conduct and put it in what he deems the proper context.

We should also make it clear that we have addressed ourselves solely to the short suspension, not exceeding 10 days. Longer suspensions or expulsions for the remainder of the school term, or permanently, may require more formal procedures. Nor do we put aside the possibility that in unusual situations, although involving only a short suspension, something more than the rudimentary procedures will be required.

The District Court found each of the suspensions involved here to have occurred without a hearing, either before or after the suspension, and that each suspension was therefore invalid and the statute unconstitutional insofar as it permits such suspensions without notice or hearing. Accordingly, the judgment is Affirmed.

Back to Top

The following two cases are associated with  Webnote D on page 53.

JUSTICE RATHJE delivered the opinion of the court:

At issue in this appeal is whether defendant has met his burden of showing that the Sex Offender Registration Act (Registration Act) (730 ILCS 150/1 et seq. (West 1998)) and the Sex Offender and Child Murderer Community Notification Law (Notification Law) (730 ILCS 152/101 et seq. (West 1998)) are unconstitutional. We hold that he has not.

BACKGROUND

On December 17, 1997, the State indicted defendant, Carl Malchow, with one count of failure to register as a sex offender (730 ILCS 150/10 (West 1998)). The State alleged that defendant was required to register as a sex offender because of his 1988 conviction of aggravated criminal sexual abuse (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 12-16). Defendant moved to declare the Registration Act and the Notification Law unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motion.  Following a stipulated bench trial, the court found defendant guilty. The court sentenced him to 18 months' conditional discharge and fined him $ 500. Defendant appealed, and the appellate court affirmed defendant's conviction. The court reaffirmed its earlier holding in People v. Logan, 302 Ill. App. 3d 319, 235 Ill. Dec. 539, 705 N.E.2d 152 (1998), that the Registration Act and the Notification Law are constitutional. State v. Malchow, 306 Ill. App. 3d 665, 714 N.E.2d 583, 239 Ill. Dec. 664. The court, however, reversed defendant's sentence because it was illegal and void. Because the trial court failed to sentence defendant to the mandatory minimum of seven days' confinement in the county jail, the appellate court remanded the cause for resentencing. 306 Ill. App. 3d 676. We granted defendant's petition for leave to appeal to determine whether the Registration Act and the Notification Law are constitutional.

Defendant argues that the Registration Act and the Notification Law are unconstitutional for the following reasons: (1) they violate the constitutional prohibition against the ex post facto application of laws; (2) they impose cruel, unusual, and disproportionate punishment; (3) they impermissibly infringe upon a person's right to privacy; (4) they subject a defendant to double jeopardy; (5) they violate the due process and equal protection clauses; and (6) Public Act 89-8, which made the Registration Act and Notification Law applicable to defendant, was passed in violation of the single subject clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV, §§ 8(d)).

The Registration Act and Notification Law set out a comprehensive scheme providing for the registration and community notification of sex offenders. Pursuant to the Registration Act, all persons who are sex offenders (730 ILCS 150/2(A) (West 1998)) under the Act are required to register with local law enforcement officials (730 ILCS 150/3 (West 1998)). The category of sex offenders includes any person who is convicted of one of the Registration Act's enumerated sex offenses or who is certified as a sexually dangerous person pursuant to the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act (725 ILCS 205/0.01 et seq. (West 1998)).

The registrant must provide identification and documentation that substantiates proof of residence at the registering address and must pay a $10 registration fee and $5 annual renewal fee. 730 ILCS 150/3(c)(6) (West 1998). Additionally, the registrant must provide a written and signed statement, and registration may also include the registrant's fingerprints and photograph. 730 ILCS 150/8 (West 1998). Registrants must keep law enforcement officials notified of any change in address and must report periodically to the appropriate law enforcement agency. 730 ILCS 150/6 (West 1998). The duty to register lasts for 10 years after a conviction, or, in the case of a sexually dangerous person who is released or found to be no longer sexually dangerous and discharged, for the rest of his or her natural life. 730 ILCS 150/7 (West 1998). Failure to comply with the Registration Act is a Class 4 felony. 730 ILCS 150/10 (West 1998).

Pursuant to the Notification Law, the Department of State Police is required to maintain a sex offender database for the purpose of identifying sex offenders and making information about them available to the persons specified in the Act. 730 ILCS 152/115 (West 1998). The appropriate law enforcement agency is responsible for disclosing the name, address, date of birth, and offense or adjudication of all sex offenders required to register pursuant to the Registration Act. The information is disclosed to the school board, school principals, and child care facilities in the county where the offender resides. 730 ILCS 152/120(a) (West 1998). Additionally, that same information may be disclosed to any person likely to encounter a sex offender (730 ILCS 152/120(b) (West 1998)), and the information is also made available for public inspection at municipal police departments and county sheriff's offices. 730 ILCS 152/120(c) (West 1998).

ANALYSIS

Standard of Review

A statute is presumed constitutional, and the party challenging the statute bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity. In re K.C., 186 Ill. 2d 542, 550, 239 Ill. Dec. 572, 714 N.E.2d 491 (1999). This court has a duty to construe a statute in a manner that upholds its validity and constitutionality if it can be reasonably done. People v. Fisher, 184 Ill. 2d 441, 448, 235 Ill. Dec. 454, 705 N.E.2d 67 (1998). Whether a statute is constitutional is a question of law that we review de novo. Fisher, 184 Ill. 2d at 448.

Ex Post Facto Law

Defendant first argues that the Registration Act and the Notification Law violate the constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws. See U.S. Const., art. I, §§§§ 9, 10; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, §§ 16. These constitutional provisions restrain Congress and the state legislatures from enacting arbitrary or vindictive legislation and assure that statutes give fair warning of their effect. Fletcher v. Williams, 179 Ill. 2d 225, 229, 227 Ill. Dec. 942, 688 N.E.2d 635 (1997). A law is ex post facto if it is both retroactive and disadvantageous to the defendant. Fletcher, 179 Ill. 2d at 230. A law disadvantages a defendant if it criminalizes an act that was innocent when done, increases the punishment for a previously committed offense, or alters the rules of evidence by making a conviction easier. People v. Franklin, 135 Ill. 2d 78, 107, 142 Ill. Dec. 152, 552 N.E.2d 743 (1990).

There is no question that the Registration Act and the Notification Law have retroactive effect. At the time of defendant's offense, he was not required to register as a sex offender. Under the version of the Act at issue in this case, he is required to register. See 730 ILCS 150/2(A)(1), (B)(1), 3(c)(2) (West 1998).

Defendant further contends that the Registration Act and the Notification Law disadvantage him because they increase the punishment for previously committed offenses. Resolution of this contention turns on the question of whether the provisions of the Registration Act and the Notification Law constitute punishment. In People v. Adams, 144 Ill. 2d 381, 163 Ill. Dec. 483, 581 N.E.2d 637 (1991), we upheld an earlier version of the Registration Act. As part of that decision, we held that requiring sex offenders to register is not punishment. Adams, 144 Ill. 2d at 386-90. Adams does not completely dispose of defendant's argument, however, because the community notification provisions were not in effect at the time of that decision. We thus consider defendant's ex post facto argument as it relates to the Notification Law.

In Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 138 L. Ed. 2d 501, 117 S. Ct. 2072 (1997), the United States Supreme Court considered whether Kansas' Sexually Violent Predator Act constituted punishment. The defendant in that case argued that the Kansas law violated the ex post facto clause because it imposed additional punishment for past conduct for which he had already been convicted and forced to serve a prison sentence. The Supreme Court first considered the legislative intent behind the law and held that the Kansas legislature intended to create a civil commitment scheme. Hendricks, 521 U.S. at 361, 138 L. Ed. 2d at 515, 117 S. Ct. at 2082. The Supreme Court then examined several factors to determine whether the law had a punitive effect despite its nonpunitive intent, and concluded that it did not. Hendricks, 521 U.S. at 362-69, 138 L. Ed. 2d at 515-19, 117 S. Ct. at 2082-85. Subsequently, several states have used the "intent-effects" test to determine whether sex offender registration and/or notification laws amount to punishment in violation of the ex post facto clause. See, e.g., Kellar v. Fayetteville Police Department, 339 Ark. 274, 5 S.W.3d 402 (1999); People v. Logan, 302 Ill. App. 3d 319, 327-31, 235 Ill. Dec. 539, 705 N.E.2d 152 (1998); State v. Pickens, 558 N.W.2d 396 (Iowa 1997); State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St. 3d 404, 700 N.E.2d 570 (1998); Meinders v. Weber, 2000 SD 2, 604 N.W.2d 248 (S.D. 2000).

We first consider the legislative intent behind the Notification Law. In Adams, we held that the legislature's intent in requiring registration of sex offenders was to create an additional measure of protection for children from the increasing incidence of sexual assault and child abuse. Adams, 144 Ill. 2d at 387. We likewise believe that protection of the public, rather than punishing sex offenders and child murderers, is the intent of the Notification Law.

Defendant argues that public notification is the modern day equivalent of "branding and shaming," and that "historically, stigmatization and banishment have been considered punitive measures." A simple reading of the act shows, however, that the intent of the Notification Law is not to stigmatize and shame sex offenders. Rather, the Act is carefully tailored so that the information is disseminated in such a way to protect the public. The name, address, date of birth, and offense or adjudication of sex offenders is given to school boards and child care facilities. Additionally, the information may be given to anyone likely to encounter a sex offender. Otherwise, the information, which is already a matter of public record, is kept at law enforcement headquarters and is available on request. The limited dissemination of the information clearly demonstrates that the Notification Law is intended to protect the public rather than to punish sex offenders.

Even if the legislature's intent is not to create a punitive scheme, in certain circumstances the legislature's intent will be disregarded where the party challenging the statute demonstrates by "the clearest proof" that the statute's effect is so punitive that it negates the legislature's intent. Hendricks, 521 U.S. at 361, 138 L. Ed. 2d at 515, 117 S. Ct. at 2082. 

Courts have generally looked to the factors enunciated in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 9 L. Ed. 2d 644, 83 S. Ct. 554 (1963), to determine whether a statute has a punitive effect despite its nonpunitive intent. See, e.g., Hendricks, 521 U.S. at 362-69, 138 L. Ed. 2d at 515-19, 117 S. Ct. at 2082-85; Keller, 339 Ark. at 282-87, 5 S.W.3d at 407-10; People v. Logan, 302 Ill. App. 3d 319, 329-31, 235 Ill. Dec. 539, 705 N.E.2d 152 (1998); Meinders, 604 N.W.2d at 256-62; Cook, 83 Ohio St. 3d at 418-23, 700 N.E.2d at 582-85; Pickens, 558 N.W.2d at 398-400. Those factors are: (1) whether the "sanction" involves an affirmative disability or restraint; (2) whether the sanction has been historically regarded as punishment; (3) whether the sanction comes into play only on a finding of scienter; (4) whether operation of the sanction will promote retribution and deterrence; (5) whether the behavior to which the sanction applies is already a crime; (6) whether an alternative purpose to which the sanction may rationally be connected is assignable for it; and (7) whether the sanction appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. at 168-69, 9 L. Ed. 2d at 661, 83 S. Ct. at 567-68.

These factors clearly weigh in favor of the conclusion that the Notification Law's effect is not so punitive that it defeats the legislature's intent. First, the Notification Law does not place an affirmative disability or restraint on sex offenders. Their movements and activities are not restricted in any way. Defendant suggests that the Notification Law leads to public shaming and restricts the ability of sex offenders to reenter the community. The information, however, is not disseminated to the community as a whole. Rather, the information is distributed only to child care facilities, school boards, and those persons likely to encounter a sex offender. Granted, that information is also available for public inspection at local law enforcement agencies. As the Pickens court noted, though, that information is "already a matter of public record and dissemination of registration information does not place new information into the public domain." Pickens, 558 N.W.2d at 399. Moreover, defendant's argument consists of speculation about the collateral consequences of community notification, which is irrelevant to the question of whether the Notification Law places an affirmative disability or restraint on sex offenders.

We next consider whether community notification has traditionally been regarded as punishment. Defendant argues that, historically, stigmatization and banishment have been considered punitive measures. Although that may be true, the Notification Law does not provide for "stigmatization and banishment." Rather, it provides for a limited dissemination of matters of public record to school boards, child care facilities, and those likely to encounter sex offenders. This limited distribution clearly is not analogous to stigmatization penalties such as branding, stockading, pillaring, or banishment. Further, "dissemination of such information has never been regarded as punishment when done in furtherance of a legitimate governmental interest." E.B. v. Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077, 1099-1100 (3d Cir. 1997).

The next factor is whether the Notification Law has a scienter requirement. Clearly it does not. The only requirement for the notification provisions to become effective is that the offender is released into the community. Accordingly, this factor does not indicate a punitive intent.

We next consider whether community notification promotes the traditional punishment goals of deterrence and retribution. As stated previously, we believe that the legislature's intention in passing the Notification Law was protection of the public from sex offenders. The limited release of information to those likely to encounter sex offenders could hardly be characterized as "retribution." As to the deterrence factor, it is possible that the Notification Law would have a deterrent effect. However, it is unlikely that those not already deterred from committing sex offenses by the possibility of a lengthy prison terms will be deterred by the additional possibility of community notification. Moreover, even an obvious deterrent purpose does not necessarily make a law punitive. Department of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767, 780, 128 L. Ed. 2d 767, 779, 114 S. Ct. 1937, 1946 (1994). We believe the statute's purpose is protection of the public and that it does not significantly promote either retribution or deterrence.

The next factor is whether the Notification Law applies to behavior that is already criminal. This factor weighs in favor of defendant. The appropriate people are notified only of those people who have committed criminal actions.

The sixth factor is whether there is some purpose other than punishment that can rationally be associated with the law. As set out above, we believe the Notification Law shows on its face that its purpose is protection of the public rather than punishment.

The final factor is whether the law is excessive in relation to its alternative purpose. In other words, we consider whether the provisions of the Notification Law are excessive in relation to the goal of protecting the public from sex offenders. As already stated, the Notification Law provides for a compilation of information about sex offenders and for a limited distribution of that information. Further, the information disseminated applies only to those people required to register as sex offenders, and the registration requirement for most offenders terminates after 10 years (see 730 ILCS 150/7 (West 1998)). We do not believe that the legislature has chosen  excessive measures to implement its goal of protecting the public from sex offenders.

In sum, we conclude that defendant has not met his burden of showing that the Notification Law has such a punitive effect that the legislature's intent to create a nonpunitive scheme may be disregarded. After considering all of the relevant factors, we conclude that the requirements of the Notification Law are nonpunitive. We have previously held that requiring sex offenders to register does not constitute punishment. Adams, 144 Ill. 2d at 386-90. Accordingly, defendant has not been subjected to additional punishment for a previously committed offense, and his ex post facto claim must therefore fail.

Cruel, Unusual, and Disproportionate Punishment

Defendant next contends that the Registration Act and the Notification Law violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment (U.S. Const., amend. VIII). In Adams, we rejected an eighth amendment challenge to the Registration Act, and held that registration of sex offenders was not punishment. Adams, 144 Ill. 2d at 386-90. We determined above that the Notification Law does not constitute punishment. Accordingly, defendant's argument must fail. Defendant also argues that the Registration Act violates the provision of the Illinois Constitution that provides that, "All penalties shall be determined both according to the seriousness of the offense and with the objective of restoring the offender to useful citizenship" (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, §§ 11). Defendant points out that failing to register as a sex offender is a Class 4 felony (730 ILCS 150/10 (West 1998)), and that this penalty can potentially be applied to those sex offenders whose underlying conviction was for only a Class A misdemeanor (730 ILCS 150/2(B)(1.7) (West 1998)). Defendant has no standing to make this argument. A party may not raise a constitutional challenge to a provision of the statute that does not affect him or her. People v. Rogers, 133 Ill. 2d 1, 15, 139 Ill. Dec. 714, 549 N.E.2d 226 (1989). Defendant's underlying conviction was for a Class 2 felony, and he thus lacks standing to make this claim.

Right to Privacy

Defendant next argues that the Registration Act and the Notification Law impermissibly infringe upon the constitutional right to privacy that is implied in the United States Constitution (see Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684, 52 L. Ed. 2d 675, 684, 97 S. Ct. 2010, 2016 (1977)) and explicitly provided for in the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, §§ 6). The right to privacy under the United States Constitution has been interpreted to apply to personal decisions involving marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education. Carey, 431 U.S. at 684-85, 52 L. Ed. 2d at 684, 97 S. Ct. at 2016; Logan, 302 Ill. App. 3d at 333-34. The information defendant contends should not be disclosed under the Notification Law is not within any of these recognized areas of the right to privacy.

Defendant also has a right under the Illinois Constitution to be free from unreasonable invasions of privacy. This provision of our constitution "goes beyond federal constitutional guarantees by expressly recognizing a zone of personal privacy" and this provision is stated "broadly and without restrictions." Kunkel v. Walton, 179 Ill. 2d 519, 537, 228 Ill. Dec. 626, 689 N.E.2d 1047 (1997).  This provision, however, affords protection only against unreasonable invasions of privacy. Kunkel, 179 Ill. 2d at 538.

Defendant has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the Registration Act and Notification Law are invalid under the privacy clause of the Illinois Constitution. Defendant devotes three short sentences to arguing about the right to privacy under the United States Constitution and never argues specifically with respect to the Illinois Constitution. Defendant quotes the relevant constitutional provision at the beginning of his argument and never mentions it again. Defendant does not cite or discuss any of this court's cases that have held that the right to privacy under the Illinois Constitution is broader than its Federal counterpart. See, e.g., Kunkel, 179 Ill. 2d at 537; In re May 1991 Will County Grand Jury, 152 Ill. 2d 381, 391, 178 Ill. Dec. 406, 604 N.E.2d 929 (1992). In fact, beyond the quotations from the United States and Illinois Constitutions and the three sentence argument relating to the United States Constitution, defendant's right to privacy argument consists of one convoluted paragraph  that seems to be a procedural due process argument rather than a right to privacy argument.

As stated earlier, a statute is presumed constitutional, and the party challenging the statute bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity. K.C., 186 Ill. 2d at 550. A party obviously cannot meet the burden of demonstrating a statute's invalidity under the privacy clause of the Illinois Constitution merely by quoting that clause. Accordingly, defendant's right to privacy challenge to the Registration Act and the Notification Law must fail.

Double Jeopardy

Defendant next makes a brief argument that the Registration Act and the Notification Law subject sex offenders to double jeopardy by punishing them a second time for an offense. As we have held that the Registration Act and the Notification Law are not punitive, we must reject this claim.

Due Process and Equal Protection

Defendant next argues that the Registration Act the Notification law violate the due process and equal protection provisions of the United States and Illinois Constitutions. Defendant lumps both of these contentions into one seven-sentence argument. Three of those sentences are merely quotes  from the United States and Illinois Constitutions. Defendant's "argument" amounts to little more than a suggestion. Glaringly absent is any reasoned or developed argument. Accordingly, defendant has utterly failed to satisfy his burden of showing that the Registration Act and the Notification Law are unconstitutional on these bases.

Single Subject

Defendant's final contention is that Public Act 89-8, which amended the Registration Act in such a way that it applied to defendant, was passed in violation of the single subject clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV, §§ 8(d)). Defendant's argument on this issue is once again very brief. Defendant lists the various statutes that were amended by Public Act 89-8 and claims that they do not relate to a single subject.

In determining whether a legislative enactment was passed in violation of the single subject clause, we construe the term "subject" liberally in favor of the legislature. People v. Reedy, 186 Ill. 2d 1, 8-9, 237 Ill. Dec. 74, 708 N.E.2d 1114 (1999). The subject of a bill may be as broad as the legislature chooses, provided that the bill's provisions have a natural and logical connection. Johnson v. Edgar, 176 Ill. 2d 499, 515, 224 Ill. Dec. 1, 680 N.E.2d 1372 (1997). The General Assembly violates the single subject rule only when it includes within one act provisions that by no fair interpretation have any natural and logical connection to a single subject. Arangold Corp. v. Zehnder, 187 Ill. 2d 341, 354-55, 240 Ill. Dec. 710, 718 N.E.2d 191 (1999).

Public Act 89-8 was entitled "An Act in relation to criminal and correctional matters, amending named acts." Pub. Act 89-8, eff. March 21, 1995. The Act amended the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 IlCS 5/1-100 et seq. (West 1994)), the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 1994)), the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/1-1 et seq. (West 1994)), the Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act (725 ILCS 120/1 et seq. (West 1994)), the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/1-1-1 et seq. (West 1994)), the Medical Practice Act of 1987 (225 ILCS 60/1 et seq. (West 1994)), the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 [*23] (725 ILCS 5/100-1 et seq. (West 1994)), the Statewide Grand Jury Act (725 ILCS 215/1 et seq. (West 1994)), the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq. (West 1994)), the Interstate Agreements on Sexually Dangerous Persons Act (45 ILCS 20/0.01 et seq. (West 1994)), part 10.5 of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois (20 ILCS 2605/55a et seq. (West 1994)), the Intergovernmental Missing Child Recovery Act of 1984 (325 ILCS 40/1 et seq. (West 1994)), and the Child Sex Offender Registration Act (730 ILCS 150/1 et seq. (West 1994)).

In People v. Wooters, 188 Ill. 2d 500, 512-13, 243 Ill. Dec. 33, 722 N.E.2d 1102 (1999), this court held that the legislature could pass legislation that amended several acts, as long the amendments related to the single subject of "crime." In that case, however, we invalidated Public Act 89-203 because some of the amendments did not have any connection to the subject of crime. Wooters, 188 Ill. 2d at 513-18. 

As stated, Public Act 89-8 was entitled "An Act in relation to criminal and correctional matters, amending named acts." Defendant has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that any of the provisions of Public Act 89-8 bear no natural and logical connection to this subject. By their titles, three of the acts that were amended--the Medical Practice Act of 1987, the Code of Civil Procedure, and the Civil Administrative Code--seem unrelated to crime and correctional matters. A closer look at these provisions, however, reveal that they are related to the single subject. The amendment to the Medical Practice Act of 1987 explains that section 22 of that Act, which sets out various grounds for disciplinary action, does not apply to persons who carry out or assist in the court-ordered imposition of the death penalty. See 225 ILCS 60/4(b) (West 1996). The amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Department of Corrections shall notify the appropriate State's Attorney when there is any settlement, verdict or judgment, in excess of $500 against the Department or one of its agents, for damages incurred by a person who was committed to the Department. See 735 ILCS 5/13-202.1(d) (West 1996). The amendment to the Civil Administrative Code made a technical change to bring it into compliance with the name change of the Habitual Child Sex Offender Registration Act to the Sex Offender Registration Act. See 325 ILCS 40/6(k), 40/7(a) (West 1996).

Defendant has failed to meet his substantial burden of demonstrating that the provisions of Public Act 89-8 bear no natural or logical connection to a single subject.

DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE

Defendant does not challenge the appellate court's decision to reverse his sentence and remand the cause for resentencing. As the appellate court properly noted, section 10 of the Registration Act states that anyone convicted of a violation of the Act "shall, in addition to any other penalty required by law, be required to serve a minimum period of 7 days confinement in the local county jail" (730 ILCS 150/10 (West 1998)). Additionally, the appellate court correctly held that the State on appeal was properly allowed to challenge defendant's